This has no plot. This has no plot. This has no plot. A tedious novel, if it even is a novel rather than a series of pointless but amusing anecdotes about pretty flat, Dickensian characters (Bratasky, Abe Kepesh, Baumgarten). Lots of great passages in here. but then again, as Roth so often writes, there are lots of passages that are unnecessarily fancy, many five-dollar words where a five-cent word would have sufficed. But even these sweeping sections do not make up for this thing barely even being a novel.The themes are the usual. When Anthony Burgess said that Philip Roth "never steps into the same river twice," he meant formally. Roth writes about the same stuff every time, even confessing in the Paris Review that "it's all one book you write anyway." But what Roth has done wonderfully, perhaps more than anyone, is re-present the same thing in different interesting forms.The formal trick this time is an intertextuality with Kafka's "Report to an Academy, " one of the greatest short stories ever written. There is a fatal problem in using this technique: the themes of The Professor of Desire are not at all those of A Report to an Academy. So why do it? It seems (no offense) like a desperate attempt to make a bad book interesting. And it fails.When I say it has no plot I mean two things, both of which are routine Roth mistakes: (1) Roth's comfort in first-person narration form degrades into a series of dramatic monologues rather than actual narration of a story; (2) the story is structured in a series of deus ex machina events: the Swedes show up; Helen shows up; Claire shows up; Helen shows up again (138). Nothing is caused by anything before it. Stuff just happens. Writers, do not do this, please.Unsorted observations:1.tLouis Jelinek reminds me a lot of Flusser in Indignation—that is, a homosexual roommate who won’t stop masturbating and is clearly insane. All of Roth’s gay characters I can think of are insane, something which can’t help his Nobel candidacy.2.tKepesh, like Zuckerman, gets a Fulbright scholarship and goes to England. Do that many people get Fulbrights? What even is a Fulbright?3.t“Perhaps,” I wearily suggest, “reading books is the opiate of the educated classes.” (p.66)4.tA bit of dialogue that applies to Roth more than to Kepesh: “Moral delinquency has its fascination for you.” “Also, I say, for the authors of Macbeth and Crime and Punishment. The point I’m trying to make is that ‘moral delinquency’ has been on the minds of serious people for a long time now. And why ‘delinquents’ anyway? Won’t ‘independent spirits’ do? It’s no less accurate.” “I only mean to suggest that they aren’t wholly harmless types.” “Wholly harmless types probably lead rather constricted lives, don’t you think?” “On the other hand, one oughtn’t to underestimate the pain, the isolation, the uncertainty and everything else unpleasant that may accompany ‘independence’ of this kind.’” (p. 69 of all pages!) Anyway, this is something of an apologia for Roth, who has spent fifty years chronicling people who despise conventional morality—Mickey Sabbath most of all, Alexander Portnoy, David Kepesh, three provocateurs, three antinomians. 5.tThe gag on p.100 where he pretends to be a pornographer while using the name of his archenemy is repeated at length in The Anatomy Lesson, when Zuckerman is hopped up on drugs and furious about a bad review he got. 6.tLike the Humbling, the book is structured as 1) Deus ex machina fall 2) Deus ex machina rise 3) Deus ex machina fall.7.tThe argument on p.110-111 takes place in Sabbath’s Theater, though at more length. Women, skip those pages. Gross.8.tThe line about Kafka transforming his life into folklore is repeated in Deception by the hot student Professor Roth has sex with.9.t“In the fifties I spent a year on an exchange program, living in New York City. Walking the streets, it looked to me as if the place was aswarm with the crew of Ahab’s ship. And at the helm of everything, big or small, I saw yet another roaring Ahab. The appetite to set things right, to emerge at the top, to be declared a ‘champ.’ And by dint, not just of energy and will, but of enormous rage. And that, the rage, is what I should like to translate into Czech…if it can be.” (p.116)10.tWe have, as in most of Roth’s books, a war between the body and the soul. Kepesh’s distress over his failing relationships causes him impotence. 117: “Sexual despair, vows of chastity that seem somehow to have been taken by me behind my back, and which I lived with against my will. Either I turned against my flesh, or it turned against me—I still don’t know quite how to put it.” 11.t“Only the childless bachelor appears to have living progeny. Where better for irony to abound than a la tombe de Franze Kafky?” (p. 120)12.tOn p. 124 the metafictive trick begins, Kepesh’s report to the class on his life as a human, which is, we find out, what we have been reading all along. What doesn’t work is because it is not clear what makes Kepesh no longer a human being. My best guess is the conventional monogamy with which the novel ends (the “Chekhov story” ending). What also is stupid is that Kepesh knows that his heart will not stay with Claire very long; and that he will find someone else whom he desires more (he is quite aware he is a slave to his libido), so how conventional is it really? 13.tMuch of the novel—again, this is the case with many of Roth’s novels—is taken up with essays on literature. This is a complaint often given against Bellow, Roth’s mentor. I actually like the one on 125.14.t The famous dream of Kafka’s whore, yes, is funny, and written in Kafka’s absurdist style and with his timing. Whether it was Kafka’s sexual frustration or his father that drove him to such lunacy as writing fiction, I have no answer.15.tIt really pisses me off that Kepesh’s relationships, like Zuckerman’s (I’m thinking here especially of the beginning of Zuckerman Unbound), just disintegrate for no reason. Things just get old or tedious within a year. Of course this kind of thing happens in the real world, but in novel-land, you’ve got to be a bit more interesting than that. You can’t show that; only tell it. Helen’s domestic ineptitude was enough to dissolve a marriage that shouldn’t have happened in the first place and happened completely out of character? Which is the most ludicrous part of that sentence? Don’t have your protagonists do things out of character and have that be the main plot of the novel—all characterization is thrown out the window. I call shenanigans. Even Roth can't salvage this material. He finishes with a semi-flourish (but, like in the Zuckerman novels especially, in the context of a tedious set-piece, especially a Jewish family eating dinner for twelve pages). "On her own she decided to have an abortion. So I would not be burdened by a duty? So I could have her just for herself? But is the notion of duty so utterly horrendous? Why didn't she tell me she was pregnant? Is there not a point on life's way when one yields to duty, welcomes duty as once one yielded to pleasure, to passion, to adventure--a time when duty is the pleasure, rather than pleasure the duty?" (174)Roth juxtaposes this extended meditation about whether or not to marry the girl of your dreams (after you've been through a divorce with someone else), Sol Barbatnik, the Shoah survivor tells his story and makes Kepesh's problems look even more infantile (what if in the future I don't like her anymore?) and drops this heavy line: "[I survived by telling myself] There was a beginning, there has to be an ending. I am going to live to see this monstrosity come to an end. This is what I told myself every single morning and night." (175) Sounds like Kepesh trying to get through the tedium of married life, the blissful "nothing over which nations go to war." "He shakes his head. 'Darling, you live, you ask questions. Maybe it's why we live. It seems that way." (177)Kepesh's glossing of the scene as a Chekhov story (178-9) is awesome. But it's not enough to save this thing or to make it into a real novel. How does Roth end it, you ask? Why, with a heavily foreshadowed yet completely uncaused deus ex machina! Another one! As Kepesh lies there and holds his girlfriend under the covers, they hear the shriek of someone suddenly dying in the other room, completing the Chekhov story.What frustrates me is that Philip Roth is a master novelist, but he makes stupid mistakes and is too prolific for his own good. He can't slow himself down, it seems, nor can he know when to keep a novel in a drawer. In Exit Ghost Zuckerman debates what to do with a manuscript he knows is bad--do the Faulkner approach, he asks, and just publish it anyway? Or do the Hemingway and keep it a secret? DO THE HEMINGWAY, I say.
Il giovane David Kepesh è il primo della classe, serio, puntiglioso negli studi, lettore, pieno di certezze e di autostima. Ad un certo punto decide di impegnarsi nella sua vita sessuale con lo stesso impegno finora dedicato agli studi e comincia a tormentare tutte le ragazzine che gli vengono a tiro. Con risultati penosi, perché le ragazzine, la maggioranza delle volte, si stupiscono del suo cambiamento e lo rifiutano.“Con una simile reputazione avrei dovuto ridurne centinaia al meretricio, mentre, di fatto, nel giro di quattro anni sono riuscito ad ottenere una penetrazione completa in due sole occasioni, e qualcosa di vagamente simile a una penetrazione in altre due”.Va poi a studiare a Londra, dove inizia un rapporto a tre con due ragazze scandinave, Elisabeth e Birgitta. La prima, tenera, materna e affettuosa, tenta dopo poco il suicidio. Insieme alla seconda invece inizia a conoscere il sesso in tutte le sue sfumature più scabrose. Insieme a lei adesca giovani ragazze per coinvolgerle nei loro giochi perversi. I due ne fanno di tutti i colori, fino a quando David decide che è tempo di tornare in America a finire gli studi. Lascia quindi Birgitta, che ancora lo desidera, dicendole che “Ci siamo spinti troppo oltre e non potremmo mai tornare a un rapporto normale”.“Io facevo quello che gli artisti della masturbazione si limitavano a sognare”.Una volta laureato e dopo aver iniziato la sua carriera accademica, conosce Helen, una coetanea che a vent’anni ha lasciato famiglia e università per scappare in estremo oriente e che una volta tornata vive l’insoddisfazione della vita provinciale americana. Si sposano in fretta, ma il matrimonio va malissimo e i due si odiano presto, iniziando a litigare per i toast bruciati o per una commissione dimenticata. Dopo qualche anno di matrimonio infernale, si lasciano. Helen è una creatura speciale, ma la vita con lei ha logorato David, causandogli la prima batosta della sua vita.David resta solo, comincia ad andare da uno psicanalista e a prendere psicofarmaci. Ritorna a vedere la luce conoscendo Claire, un’insegnante venticinquenne, bella, fresca e spontanea. Claire è una persona che sembra fatta apposta per far star bene gli altri, senza grilli in testa. David però non riesce nemmeno con Claire a stare bene stabilmente, perché non accetta che la passione non possa mantenersi sempre sulle stesse vette:“Certo, ormai la passione fra noi non è più quella che era nelle domeniche trascorsi avvinghiati nel mio letto fino alle tre del pomeriggio, ci abbracciavamo sotto la doccia e infine uscivamo a prendere un po’ d’aria prima che il sole invernale calasse. La torrida frenesia cede a una pacata affezione fisica. Certo, l’elemento vagamente brutale si è volatilizzato; si è persa quella miscela di tenerezza e ferocia, i lividi bluastri segno di un completo soggiogamento, l’elettrizzante licenziosità delle parole volgari alitate al picco del piacere. Non soccombiamo più al desiderio, e neppure ci tocchiamo dappertutto palpandoci e impastandoci e manipolandoci con quella folle insaziabilità così aliena da quel che altrimenti siamo. È vero, non c’è più in me quel po’ di bruto, non c’è più in lei quel po’ di sgualdrina, né l’uno né l’altra siamo più il pazzo smanioso, la bambina depravata, l’implacabile stupratore, l’inerme impalata”.Mentre David e Claire sono in vacanza, ritorna Helen. Quello tra David e Helen è il dialogo di due anime insoddisfatte malate di desiderio.È di questo che parla il romanzo: del piacere, di quanto possa essere lacerante e allo stesso tempo non si possa fare a meno di cercarlo e della fatica che costa raggiungerlo e mantenerlo.Vediamo crescere David Kepesh attraverso le donne delle quali si innamora: Brigitta, Elisabeth, Helen fino a Claire, che si rivela essere tutto quello che David non aveva mai cercato nelle sue amanti e di cui invece ha sempre avuto bisogno.O forse semplicemente David comincia ad “accontentarsi”. Qual è la morale? Che la nostra brama del desiderio va oltre il bisogno di quiete e serenità. Anche quando David gode della felicità domestica, la ritiene finita:“Non posso dirtelo, non stasera, ma nel giro di un anno la mia passione sarà spenta. Si sta già spegnendo e temo di non poter far nulla per salvarla. E che tu non possa far nulla. Sono intimamente legato a te come a nessun altro, eppure non riuscirò neanche a sollevare una mano per toccarti… a meno di non ricordare prima a me stesso che devo farlo. Per questa carne sui cui sono innestato e riportato a una qualche padronanza sulla mia vita, sarò privo di desiderio”.David Kepesh è un insoddisfatto, un sognatore nevrotico e insaziabile, incapace di accettare la realtà. Non vuole accettare che il desiderio e la felicità non possono essere eterni ma sono destinati a durare solo attimi fuggenti e casuali. Ha avuto avventure, ha fatto sesso sfrenato con una scandinava disinibita, ha sposato una donna bellissima, ha una relazione con una venticinquenne dolce, brillante e affettuosa. Ha vissuto una vita piena d’amore e di sesso, ha una brillante posizione sociale, guadagna bene. Che cosa vuole di più?
What do You think about The Professor Of Desire (1995)?
This is currently my favorite Roth novel (I havn't read them all yet) and it is what made me a true believer in his work. I found this novel which is actually a sequel to "The Breast" (Roth's "Metamorphasis" double that has David Kepesh turned into a 155lb breast) I find it somewhat strange that not many reflections on his experiance in "The Breast were eluded to in this sequel. Regardless this is one of the most sexually, not promiscuous, but aware novel that I have ever read. I found myself relating to the literary Professor that is our protagonist, and also seemingly his own antagonist but thats a wholenother conversation. Point being the sexual life of David Kepesh is oen that many men would envy but it shows that being handsome and well versed in education doesn't always gaurentee a mate and in many cases it makes your lifelong goal of finding that special someone harder for one reason or another. Those reasons are exposed in this novel and what an amazing read for anyone that experiances the same issues. I can imagine this is a love or hate book depending on how your own life situation goes but regardless Roth's work here is undeniably amazing. His literary prowess shows more so in "The Professor of Desire" than any other book of his Ive read, and he also keeps most of his "Jewish Bantor" out of the novel allowing everyone to enjoy it unbiased. A great novel that should be read.
—Kyle Shroufe
Ideale prosecuzione del Lamento di Portnoy, del quale condivide la genesi nella famiglia ebraica americana, Il professore di desiderio inizia la parabola introspettiva che ha allontanato definitivamente Roth dai suoi inizi pirotecnici.E infatti se all'inizio del romanzo il protagonista è un buffone, a un certo punto svolta, e diventa sempre più introspettivo, e si lascia segnare dai suoi numerosi fallimenti, che hanno tutti a che fare con i rapporti con l'altro sesso, fino a quando troverà la donna apparentemente perfetta, così perfetta da portarlo inesorabilmente alla mancanza di desiderio, alla quale però non intende arrendersi.
—Maria Grazia
It was when I read the then-new American Pastoral that I exclaimed of Roth, "He has grown up!" Here, I suspect, is where that process begins. As with the dispiriting My Life as a Man, we have a protagonist dealing with a Medea-esque castrating harridan, but by the end of this one, there is at least a shred of hope that dealings between the sexes won't always and inevitably be catastrophic emotional sieges. A shred. A start.Actually read this in the 3rd volume of the Library of America edition, even though I own the edition pictured. I'm thinking of deaccessioning this and My Life, so let me know if you want 'em.
—cheeseblab
